Utilitarian is a consequentiality ethic since it reflects on the amount of contentment or pain in the outcome of an action. However, Kantian morality is deontological and non-consequential because it identifies the right deed as one, which suits a decree that can be followed by everyone (Morton 207). In Kantian Deontology, an ethically right deed is explained as a doing that follows the law of rationale or what an individual of good would be considered to do. Since it is impractical to identify the intentions of one’s actions, it also becomes difficult to figure out which actions the Kantian Deontology considers as having moral values.

As a result, actions in Kant are not only ethically right, but are committed on the purpose of untainted good spirit. In addition, Deontology maintains the belief that a deed is required if it is ethically right and prohibited when morally wrong (Kocis 98). In addition, actions in Kantian Deontology are considered right or wrong despite the consequences (Comstock 63). For example, an act of murder with the justification of obtaining organs to save a life is considered ethically wrong despite the advantages gained. In this case, it is debated that there are several ethical principles to be concerned about in order to make an action right or wrong (Comstock 63).

The Kant principles are articulated as trying to establish the fundamental human rights. For example, stating that every individual has a right to liberty of speech is fundamentally setting an explanation that restrains one’s liberty of speech, and cannot be defensible by directing it to the advantages gained (Comstock 63). Kant’s deontology is also associated with the principle stating that nobody should be treated exclusively as a means to an ending, but should instead be acknowledged as a person. This means that it is not reasonable for one to use others only as instruments to achieve a certain purpose, and hence one must realize that those people maintain a self-good that has to be treasured.

For a deed to be recognized as legally right and conforming to the rationale law, it must effectively be submitted to the uncompromising imperative. This imperative stipulates that one should act on the truisms, which at the same time he/she can determine them to turn into universal decrees. When preparing an action into a universal decree, which consists of a will recognized by Kant to be administered by reason, no inconsistencies are concerned. However, in disposing a lie, there would be an inconsistency in the belief.

This is because the act of lying would be unattainable if everyone committed it and therefore, the proposition of disposing a lie into a universal decree would be impossible. In addition, trust would be required for a lie to be successful, and hence trust would be corroded if people lied. As a result, a lie is not allowed and hence anyone following Kant has a strict obligation to be honest. Deontological ethics identify the relevance of a deed based on the acts that are prohibited or mandatory (Morton 207). The Utilitarian view follows the major principle of happiness that stipulates that the rightness or wrongness of actions is determined based on their ability to increase genuine happiness. Genuine happiness is based on the happiness of the entire community.

Positive outcome is therefore required to prevail over the negative results of a deed in order to be recognized as a right doing. However, positive outcome from a traditional point of view is established based on the overall amount of pain and contentment familiarized from conscious beings and suffering and contentment experienced in people’s advanced abilities including their mental skills, feelings and thoughts. Each conscious individual is included in establishing the pains and contentment that added up to the weight of the overall community’s happiness (Morton 207). The ethical value of an action is identified based on the resulting consequences and hence the action’s morality is evaluated only after being acquainted with all the consequences.

Personally, I do not agree with the Kant’s policy of determining right or wrong without considering any consequences. Consequences define the impact the actions will have on someone and hence it is unreasonable in failing to justify an action with positive consequences. For example, in the case of obtaining organs from a dead patient, I would not consider the action wrong because it has a positive consequence of saving an important life.

Works Cited

Comstock, Gary. Life Science Ethics. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Press, 2002. Print.

Kocis, Robert. Machiavelli Redeemed Retrieving His Humanist Perspectives on Equality, Power, and Glory. Bethlehem, Pa: Lehigh University Press, 1998. Print.

Morton, Adam. Philosophy in Practice: An Introduction to the Main Questions. Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell Publishers, 1996. Print.


I'm Katy!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out